TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

D'Allesandro v. Bentivoglia

D’Allesandro Et Al., Appellants, v. Bentivoglia Et Al.

D'Allesandro v. Bentivoglia, 131 A. 592 (Pa. 1925)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · State Highest Courts
Decided
November 25, 1925
Docket
Nos. s, 330 and 331
Judges
Mosch, Frazer, Walling, Simpson, Kephart, Sadler, Schaffer
Citations
131 A. 592285 Pa. 721926 Pa. LEXIS 402

Opinion of the Court — Per Curiam

Per Curiam, This appeal is from the refusal of the court below to remove a nonsuit.

On Saturday, November 24, 1923, the minor plaintiff, over 14 years of age, was at his father’s place of business, when an automobile truck of the defendants called for a load of material. The driver, not knowing the route to his next stopping place, asked the boy to guide him. There being no room on the seat, the lad took a position on the running board and the truck proceeded on its way. The driver made a sharp turn to avoid a collision with another automobile, and in so doing the boy was thrown to the street and injured.

Entirely aside from the question of the plaintiff’s contributory negligence in riding on the running board of a moving motor car, we agree with the court below that an “employer is liable only for the acts of his servant done in the scope of his employment, and the employment in this case did not include taking the minor plaintiff for a ride” either as “a passenger,’’ which the statement of claim alleges he was, or as an assistant *74 (Byrne v. Pittsburgh B. Co., 259 Pa. 357, 361 ; see also Hughes v. Murdoch S. & T. Co., 269 Pa.

222);

for no such emergency is shown by the record before us as would warrant the driver of the truck in imposing the responsibility of an employer of the minor plaintiff on defendant. Unless an emergency is shown where the servant is unable alone to perform the work which he was engaged to do, authority to employ an assistant is not proved: Byrne v. Pittsburgh B. Co., supra.

The judgment is affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 16 cases

View all citing references →
1927: 21929: 11930: 11932: 31937: 11938: 21939: 11940: 11942: 11943: 11947: 11958: 119272026peak 1932 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Slother v. Jaffe51 A.2d 747 (Pa. 1947)
  2. White v. Brainerd Service Motor Co.232 N.W. 626 (Minn. 1930)
  3. Russell ex rel. Russell v. Cutshall26 S.E.2d 866 (N.C. 1943)
  4. Jacamino v. Harrison Motor Freight Co.5 A.2d 393 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1938)
  5. Delaware & H. R. Corp. v. Bonzik105 F.2d 341 (3d Cir. 1939)
  6. Marschall v. Glaeser278 N.W. 763 (Mich. 1938)

Most recent

  1. Muroski v. Hnath139 A.2d 902 (Pa. 1958)
  2. Slother v. Jaffe51 A.2d 747 (Pa. 1947)
  3. Russell ex rel. Russell v. Cutshall26 S.E.2d 866 (N.C. 1943)
  4. Fritz v. Smith46 Pa. D. & C. 269 (1942)
  5. White v. Consumers Finance Service, Inc.15 A.2d 142 (Pa. 1940)
  6. Delaware & H. R. Corp. v. Bonzik105 F.2d 341 (3d Cir. 1939)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Hughes v. Murdoch Storage & Transfer Co., 112 A. 111 (Pa. 1920) 27
Byrne v. Pittsburgh Brewing Co., 103 A. 53 (Pa. 1918) 21

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list